Peter Strzok DESTROYED the Party of Alex Jones Today

Peter Strzok DESTROYED the Party of Alex Jones Today. He was eloquent, respectful, and unshakeable. Democratic members of the committee were stellar, from demonstrating the GOP's own bias against Trump to reminding us that criminal findings of the Mueller investigation have nothing to do with Strzok's political bias.

I just regret the chutzpah we saw by Democratic committee members will not be distilled down into productive Democratic messaging because, well, that's just not what we do. We'll get some statesmanlike sober comments from Adam Schiff who is good at repeating the news of the day, but seems to have zero interest in creating and controlling a message to susceptible voters (suburban white women). Those susceptible voters have preconceived notions of the AJP (Alex Jones Party), but to exploit those notions, we need to be PR people and not just prosecutors. How hard is it to call the GOP the Party of Alex Jones? Even if they don't know who Alex Jones is, there is an implication of inferiority that will put your Raul Labradors and Mitch McConnells on defense.

This is not a disavowal of ground game or remaining true to progressive values, not by any means. This is about taking away the one appeal the MAGAs have to swing voters. Swingers respect power and control. They are not politically sophisticated, but they can tell who has the rhetorical upper hand. Trump repeats that he is a victim of a political witch hunt and as a direct result, more people are of the opinion that Mueller has a political bias against Trump. We will always lose when we don't show up to play. So...

1. You're preaching to the choir. The party of Alex Jones still survives

because its members don't care about the truth of what Strzok said, or what anybody says other than their Dear Leader and his minions. Getting rid of the party of Alex Jones will be tougher than getting rid of a herpes infection.

8. Oh yes they did bring it up

Right near the end before they recessed to go vote in the main House chamber.

It was done along the lines of questioning Strzok about whether he (and/or Comey) was aware of and had "concerns" about the relationship of the FBI in the NY office and media reports about info being leaked about Weiner's laptop. I forgot which guy did it but it was one of the less senior members on the committee. Strzok had indicated that Comey had those concerns.

12. The segment and transcripts are here

It was the questioning coming from one of the Democratic members from Illinois - either Raja Krishnamoorthi or Brad Schneider....

THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
02:40:27

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR. STRZOK. MR. STRZOK, ON JULY 3rd, YOURLAWYER, MR. GOLDMAN, MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO CHRIS CUOMO ON CNN REGARDING YOU, HIS CLIENT. ON FOX NEWS, THEY TALK ABOUT HIM AS A CENTER OF THIS ANTI-TRUMP KABUL THAT WAS DETERMINED TO THROW THE ELECTION AGAINST TRUMP. NONE OF THIS HAS A SHRED OF TRUTH. DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT, SIR?

02:40:49

I DO.
02:40:50

JUNE 19th OP-ED IN USA TODAY, YOUR LAWYER SAID REGARDING THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, WHAT WE CALL THE RUSSIA COLLUSION INVESTIGATION, THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM QUOTE/UNQUOTE WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO PREVENT LEAKS AND ACTIVELY INSURED THAT NEWS REPORTS DID NOT OVERPLAY THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE INVESTIGATION. IS THAT TRUE, SIR?

02:41:12

YES.
02:41:13

NOW, TELL US WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO PREVENT LEAKS FROM THE FBI TO JOURNALISTS OR TO OTHERS.
02:41:20

02:41:20

LEAKS ARE TERRIBLE. THEY UNDERCUT THINGS IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. THEY CAN UPEND INVESTIGATIONS. THEY CAN LEAD TO INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS. THEY CAN LET WITNESSES KNOW THEY'REIR BEING INVESTIGATED. THEY CAN LEAD TO THE DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE, ANY NUMBER OF BAD THINGS. ANY NUMBER OF REALLY BAD ADVERSE THINGS.

02:41:42

GOT IT. THE DOJ IG'S REPORT HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE DECISION TO INFORM CONGRESS ABOUT THE WIENER LAPTOP. QUOTE/UNQUOTE, STRZOK EXPLAINS THAT THE DECISION TO SEEK A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE WIENER LAPTOP WAS KNOWN TO MANY PEOPLE BEYOND THE MIDYEAR TEAM, AND THIS RAISED A CONCERN THAT DISINFORMATION COULD LEAK. IS THIS STATEMENT FROM THE IG'S REPORT TRUE?

02:42:08

YES.
02:42:08

NOW, COULD YOU UNPACK THAT FOR US A LITTLE BIT? FIRST OF ALL, YOU SAID ACCORDING TO THE IG'S REPORT THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE WIENER LAPTOP WAS KNOWN TO MANY PEOPLE BEYOND THE MIDYEAR TEAM. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHETHER ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE IN THE NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE?

02:42:29

SO THE -- MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIMES IN THE CASE OF MR. WIENER WAS HANDLED OUT OF THE NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE OUT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, OR MAYBE THE EASTERN DISTRICT.

02:42:44

THE PEOPLE YOU'RE REFERRING INCLUDED PEOPLE IN THE NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE, CORRECT?
02:42:48

THAT'S CORRECT.
02:42:48

YOU HAD CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS IF DIRECTOR COMEY DID NOT INFORM CONGRESS ABOUT THIS WIENER LAPTOP.

02:42:57

I DID NOT HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT NEW YORK. MY CONCERNS WERE JUST GENERAL. THAT THE MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE AWARE OF SOMETHING, THE GREATER CHANCE THAT IT LEAKS OUT SOMEHOW. BUT THOSE CONCERNS WERE NOT SPECIFIC IN MY MIND TO NEW YORK.

02:43:10

OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS. IN A REPORT IN THAT SAME REPORT, ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH RECALLS A CONVERSATION WITH THEN DIRECTOR COMEY IN THE FINAL DAYS OF THE 2016 ELECTION. QUOTE/UNQUOTE, HE, REFERRING TO COMEY, SAID IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE'S A CADRE OF SENIOR PEOPLE IN NEW YORK WHO HAVE A DEEP AND VISCERAL HATRED OF SECRETARY CLINTON. HE SAID IT IS, QUOTE/UNQUOTE DEEP. WERE YOU AWARE OF THIS, OF THIS CONCERN?

02:43:39

I WAS AWARE OF THE CERTAINLY SOME OF THE PRESS REPORTING AND SOME PEOPLE EXPRESSING THAT CONCERN.02:43:46

WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE DIRECTOR COMEY?02:43:50

A PERSON HAVING THAT CONCERN?02:43:51

YES.02:43:52

COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT AND HOW THAT IN YOUR VIEW AFFECTED THE REVELATION OF THE WARRANT FOR WIENER'S LAPTOP?

02:44:05

YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK DIRECTOR COMEY THAT. I THINK THERE WAS DISCUSSION, I REMEMBER, AND PARTICULARLY SOME OF IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF REPORTING FROM MR. GIULIANI AND OTHERS TALKING ABOUT CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK. BUT AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO SCAPEGOAT NEW YORK BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF IT. AND THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT NUMBER OF FOLKS, BUT WITH REGARD TO MR. COMEY, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THOSE CONCERNS BUT I WAS NOT PRIVY TO DISCUSSIONS HE HAD WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OTHER CONCERNS HE MIGHT HAVE HAD OUTSIDE OF MY PRESENCE OR CONVERSATION.

02:44:37

NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GIULIANI, ON OCTOBER 25th, THEN TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER RUDY GIULIANI PROMISED A QUOTE/UNQUOTE PRETTY BIG SURPRISE COMING UP IN THE CAMPAIGN. ON OCTOBER 28th, GIULIANI CLAIMED TO BE IN CONTACT WITH FORMER AGENTS AND A QUOTE/UNQUOTE ACTIVE AGENTS WHO OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. LET ME MAKE SURE I HAVE THIS RIGHT. THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT THERE WAS A DEEP AND VISCERAL HATRED TOWARD SECRETARY CLINTON IN THE NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE. AT THE SAME TIME, MR. GIULIANI SAID THAT HE'S HAVING CONTACTS WITH AGENTS. ACTIVE AGENTS. WHAT -- CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR TAKE ON THIS AND YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE?

02:45:19

I RECALL THAT COMMENT. I RECALL IT CAUSED ME A LOT OF CONCERN.02:45:25

AND WHY? WHY DID IT CAUSE YOU CONCERN?

02:45:27

BECAUSE, WHILE IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT MR. GIULIANI IS EXAGGERATING OR ENGAGING IN SOME SORT OF PUFFERY, THE REALITY IS THAT ALSO GIVEN THE THINGS THAT WERE GOING ON, GIVEN TIMING THAT THE LAPTOP WAS THERE AND HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF A BIG SURPRISE, IT CAUSED ME GREAT CONCERN THAT HE HAD INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD.

02:45:51

THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD, THROUGH A LEAK?02:45:54

THROUGH AN UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSER, SURE, A LEAK, YES.02:45:57

THANK YOU, SIR. THE MEMBERS ARE ADVISED THAT THE VOTES ARE ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. FOUR VOTES. MR. STRZOK, YOU PROBABLY HAVE A GOOD 45 MINUTES TO -- ALL RIGHT. MEMBERS ARE ADVISED THAT THIS WILL BE THE LAST ONE. IF YOU WANT TO HEAD TO THE FLOOR FOR VOTES, BUT THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM KENTUCKY.

5. Let's Give Schiff and the Dems a Little More Credit

9. I think Schiff is great

Really do, but there's nothing wrong with expecting Schiff, Swalwell et al to take control of a message. If they repeated one message in each of their appearances: "Congressional Republicans are unravelling," "Donald Trump sounds guilty," "The Party of Alex Jones is desperate."

11. it helps your confidence when you are telling the truth.

13. It is defeatist to dump on the Democratic Party in advance, stating it as if fact

Messaging and choice of language around framing the issues are very important, as you clearly feel too. But you wrote:

I just regret the chutzpah we saw by Democratic committee members will not be distilled down into productive Democratic messaging because, well, that's just not what we do. We'll get some statesmanlike sober comments from Adam Schiff who is good at repeating the news of the day, but seems to have zero interest in creating and controlling a message to susceptible voters (suburban white women).

You wrote "will not be", "not what we do", "we'll get", etc. You wrote that as if it were facts that had already happened, despite being set in the future.

That is defeatist.

Please do not do that.

Much better to phrase things as "we should", "we must", "Schiff should", "messaging we could do". You can make a positive hopeful optimistic future even while saying things like "we have a history of ..." and being prepared to defend that view of history.

Messaging is so important that internal messaging counts. Please be forward looking and don't project past faults onto our future. Keeping history in the past where it can inform us without controlling us is a powerful way to make progress.

17. Great points

What is defeatist is failure to create and control a narrative about the opponent that voters can dig their teeth into. I praise my party where appropriate and reserve the right to be critical where appropriate. I appreciate that you would have said things differently. That's fine.